Yes on San Diego Measures A, B, C, D, E, F, G

Howard Lipin

The obvious good idea is Measure A, which would increase from seven to nine the number of people appointed to redraw City Council district borders based on the decennial Census and would also increase the number of public hearings on proposed new boundaries. It makes sense to have nine members because then, in theory, one could come from each existing or likely district. San Diegans should vote yes on all seven measures. Click for our full editorial on these measures.

The obvious good idea is Measure A, which would increase from seven to nine the number of people appointed to redraw City Council district borders based on the decennial Census and would also increase the number of public hearings on proposed new boundaries. It makes sense to have nine members because then, in theory, one could come from each existing or likely district. San Diegans should vote yes on all seven measures. Click for our full editorial on these measures.

(Howard Lipin)

The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board

That seven measures on the San Diego ballot have received so little attention this spring is no big deal: One is an obvious good idea and the other six clean up outdated language in the City Charter, an 85-year-old document that could use some revision.

The obvious good idea is Measure A, which would increase from seven to nine the number of people appointed to redraw City Council district borders based on the decennial Census and would also increase the number of public hearings on proposed new boundaries. It makes sense to have nine members because then, in theory, one could come from each existing or likely district.

Measures B, C, D, E, F and G are straightforward cleanups without policy implications. One, for example, would drop a reference to making payments by “warrant,” an antiquated process with little current relevance.